Hacker News Reader

Comment by tryingagainbro | Hacker News Reader

If all it takes is $4 billion to secure it and we don't, we kinda deserve it to happen. The same country has and is spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan..

On the other side, someone mention Pascal's Wager: storing a few basic needs and self defense weapons (were legal), costs practically nothing now but it could save your family's life. It's not a sure way but it's much better to have them then not.

Even in cramped apartments you could store stuff for a week or two; in private homes, you're talking months. IIRC, tap water in dark areas with a drop of bleach for liter will last for quite a while. Think 55gallon drums, replaced every so often.

View on HN

And of course the people who made this horrible choice won't have to live with it's worst consequences in a functioning democracy we could vote to protect our infrastructure

Agreed. It leads me to believe that $4b is either inaccurate or it's not as simple as clearing $4B from the budget and selecting a couple of contractors.

Nope! It's probably quite accurate. The article opens with the March 1989 geomagnetic storm which caused massive blackouts in Canada. Canada implemented upgrades like the ones the US should get, to a cost of 1.2 billion[1]. Of course the US grid is significantly more powerful but the Canadian grid is spread much more sparsely, making it more vulnerable- regardless, the cost is certainly within the same order of magnitude, as the US grid only consumes ~8x more power and Canada is larger.

It really speaks more to the absurd level of war spending than anything else- and it truly was absurd. Trillions in direct, congressional spending. We shipped 12 billion on pallets[2] to Iraq and lost it, and most people don't even remember it. The cost of revolutionizing the US power infrastructure is literally peanuts compared to what we have spent in the middle east.

[1]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-power-grid-is-getting-smar...

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust.

for society yes, but for the individual no

>> Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself.

Probably a lower one than starvation, rape or a violent death in the hands of another desperate person.

>> And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust.

Nice one. What would happen, today--with all the infrastructure in place--if cops /soldiers stayed home for 36 hours? Now add starvation plus desperation and try again.

And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. In other words, armed or not, violence is a given when it gets bad enough that people are scavenging for food. When it's so bad the police and military aren't there to protect you, you either roll over and die, or fight and possibly live another day.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't live in a perfect world with everyone following the rules even in the best of times. I would love it if your ideal world where we all trust each other existed; it would be true paradise. But, we're only human and even the very best of us are flawed creatures.

> And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan.

These violence fantasies are repeated on and on in prepper communities, but that does not make them more true. Violence may increase, but mostly people come together to help each other.

Prepping is about being prepared for either scenario, or anything in between.

thats tautological and/or no true scotsman, and doesn't directly address his claim

There's no claim to address; history has shown both outcomes can happen.

So if people come together and help each other, you won't need the weapons.

Engineers seem to understand making backups and hoping you never need them, why is this different? You have the means to protect yourself, and pray that you'll never have to use it.

(I am not a gun owner, by the way. This just seems perplexing)

I'd be curious about historical examples.

My gut is that people come together and help each other for short-term disasters or where hope of help arriving is widespread (e.g. National Guard being mobilized, local disruption in a still functioning country).

Past ~week, or shorter if there's no hope for things being fixed, people reasonably revert to survival.

"Fantasy"? Not even close.

We hope it stays far away, but when a highly technological society breaks down, it can happen very fast.

Just read about Sarajevo, went from thriving metropolis to desperate in a matter of days, in a matter of 2-3 months, people were dying of starvation. Gangs ruled, and you had to be organized and armed to survive. Venezuela is descending into that state now, even with recently imposed gun confiscation. (and those are just political disasters)

I write this without having made any particular preparations, as increasing instability has not yet crossed my threshold of probability.

But to think that it is a mere "fantasy" that things could get bad enough to need stockpiles and weapons is itself the fantasy.

Just read a bit of history, and/or do a bit or research into how fast things will run out --critical things-- when our Just-In-Time economy no longer delivers everything in time.

[[edit: add parenthetical on political disasters]]

Not a violent fantasy at all. I grew up poor and I know what it means to choose between losing the family car or eating that week. I'm a pacifist; I have been in three fights in my life, all started by someone else, all ended with me protecting my body but not fighting back, and all in 9th grade or lower. As an adult I've chosen to live a life of peace and maintain an attitude of tolerance.

But I'm also a realist. I may not like it, hell I hate it, but I'm going to protect my family and my provisions if I'm ever thrust into such a situation. That said, it's my sincere desire to live the rest of my life without ever harming a fellow human.

Having just lived through Hurricane Irma and received texted warnings of people ringing doorbells just after the storm, and then robbing homes, just a mile from me, I ask, who is living in a fantasy world?

A society based on trust is a barrel of fish waiting to have stuff taken from them. Don't be a sheep. I'm not saying you need to be a militia member but you're dense if you believe that you're better off not having weapons because there will always be people that have them.

>Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen.

I mean... ish. It definitely makes you more likely to commit suicide, but it doesn't really have much bearing on whether you're more likely to be targeted[1] or hurt. There's a massively confounding factor in that people who live in areas that are more violent have more incentive to buy a gun.

[1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/10/guns-and-states-2-son-o...

There is no scarcity of weapons, rocks are plentiful and very hard to control access to.

There is a reason Mad Max lives in Australia ;-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com